Public opinion is one thing, facts are another

micosoft · 01-12-2013 5:33pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I agree with the thrust of your point, but I'd just quibble that our contribution to foreign aid was quite substantial. At one point, Ireland was the only country in Europe spending more on foreign aid than on Defence.

That's a non-sequitur. I really don't understand how you can link foreign aid to defense spending as if there is or should be some correlation? Austria has twice our population but spends less 100% less on it's Navy. Should we shut down our Navy? Or perhaps there are geopolitical reasons why we'd have a different spending structure?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The reason seemed to be somewhat similar to the way that a considerable portion of the HSE budget goes to so-called "voluntary" bodies. In the foreign aid sector, a little state-funded ecosystem had emerged.But, in fairness, I don't thnk the issue is around the information not being stated. At Budget time, there is coverage of that kind of thing. It's just that discussion pushes it to the background, in favour of the "how does this impact on a famiy earning blah" stuff, which is usually presented without much consideration of what any of this means in a broad context.

Hardly unique to Ireland but going off topic. Dozens of examples of other countries that extensively use voluntary bodies for service delivery. Our issue is over accountability of same not the model which works very well when done right.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd also suggest that the suggestion of a supplement in the daily papers won't reach the people most in need of the information.

Figures say otherwise. 4/5 read a newspaper regularly. 1/2 daily. It's one channel - as I mentioned before bus shelters etc. I suspect (but have no evidence) that those that never read a paper are unlikely to vote in the main and not substantially influencing our political system.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd suggest the problem is more fundamental. If people approached discussion of political matters analytically, then they'd find the information. However, I'd don't think people expect that they've anything to gain by doing so. For instance, what possible benefit would pensioners gain from knowing that they account for the largest share of DSP spending?

Possibly an understanding that they may not be ones suffering the most and that giving a host of benefits such as Medical Card, Travel etc to every over 70 might not be the most equitable way of distributing our tax spend. Given the innate power of the grey vote they may wield it more reasonably. I know my elderly parents feel it unfair that that they and their reasonably comfortable friends get so much yet see others struggling. The likes of Age Action have made it out that ALL retirees are poor which is manifestly not the case.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-12-2013 5:58pm

micosoft wrote: »

<...>I really don't understand how you can link foreign aid to defense spending as if there is or should be some correlation? <..> Or perhaps there are geopolitical reasons why we'd have a different spending structure? <...> Our issue is over accountability of same not the model which works very well when done right.

I think you've explained yourself why someone might link the two spending areas. It could be explained by geopolitcal reasons, if we lived in a political system that made evidence-based decisions about public spending. However, what I'm pointing out is that the foreign aid sector in Ireland was a similar ecosystem to the 'voluntary' sector in healthcare.

Both 'voluntary' sectors involve a lot of people who have volunteered to put themselves in the way of getting reasonable tax-funded salaries, without having to satisfy the Public Appointments Service of their suitablity by competing for an openly-advertised vacancy.

I wouldn't see the need to defend those ecosystems, unless I'd some personal link to them.

micosoft wrote: »

Figures say otherwise. 4/5 read a newspaper regularly. 1/2 daily.

Can I suggest the "1/2 daily" is crucial to this issue, as is the actual papers that people read:

http://nni.ie/jnrs-20122013/

Otherwise, you might not interpret the information on that website correctly. For instance, you might find it hard to reconcile the rhetoric that the NNI use to convince advertisers that it is still worth paying for print space with the concerns you'll have undoubted read about, regarding the continued financial viability of the print medium.

If everyone was an avid reader of hard news stories, we wouldn't find this dreadful ignorance of the composition of public expenditure.

micosoft wrote: »

The likes of Age Action have made it out that ALL retirees are poor which is manifestly not the case.

Indeed, it is manifestly the case. The issue doesn't hinge on evidence - Age Action will go on with their line, regardless of any evidence. If you produced a table breaking down DSP spending by who benefits, they'd just respond by saying pensioners were being scapegoated for the mistakes of others.

And, in our culture, that would probably be enough to get them off the hook.

Silentcorner · 01-12-2013 6:11pm

micosoft wrote: »

I really don't see how you could have picked that up from what I actually wrote in my last post - you simply reinforce my impression that you make up your mind first then reply to the post without even a cursory examination. You only see what you want to see.

- Revenue giving a receipt is straightforward.
- Data.gov is in the US, a country with arguably the freest press in the world.
- Making the auditor general make information in a more accessible format is straightforward.

I already alluded in my first post that their are plenty of ways we could do this without some "ministry for information" conspiracy craic.

For example, simply take VAT off Newspapers (9% at the moment). That would be a simple start with no "influence". But far more will have to be done much like we subsidise multiple broadcasters with the broadcast charge.

I've no doubt that there are concerns when you intervene in any market but Governments do it all the time for the greater good. Having a decent quality forth estate is one of those.

Fair enough, I guess I picked up on a fraction of your point (where you stated that the state should be participating i providing information to the public) and followed through to the point where we would be appointing a well paid state figure to oversee the process, which lets be honest is what our beloved politicians would do, a lot like our Financial regulator, for obvious reasons I would consider that complete waste of taxpayers time and money.

I completely agree on having a healthy fourth estate, it is my opinion that we have too many newspapers operating in a declining market which is leading to falling standards across all media...some of these outlets will have to close down, the question is which one (TCH would be first to go I'd imagine) however, if we start subsidising these outlets, and some would argue we already have through debt write downs, we may just prolonging the agony for the staff members and standards of journalism that is required.

We can all agree that no internet news provider has the resources to provide us with a healthy fourth state, I truly believe there is a market for a newspaper that does provide that vital service, it doesn't need to be a daily, the price of that paper isn't as important as it may seem.

Just to clarify, being from Limerick I am only too aware of how our media create mispercepions and that article while addressing another issue altogether, was another example of how our press conveniently washes its hands of its responsibility, hence the term drivel.

micosoft · 01-12-2013 9:48pm

My point is more around the idea we need to intervene in the Newspaper market in some form.

I agree - journalism is becoming more and more about using stereotypes as it does not involve challenging the reader. Limerick becomes a quick shorthand in many peoples minds. So low standards already. Only decent article I read on the issues in certain areas of Limerick suburbs was by Des O'Malley.

The internet is increasingly dangerous by creating narrow results that simply reinforce a persons viewpoint. Personalisation is potentially one of the greatest threat to a well informed electorate that we face (slight hyperbole, but...)

Have a look at a really interesting but short Ted Talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

It's frightening how "different" online news looks based on some algorithm.

So I come back to my point. If the broad stable newspaper (or source) which displays a variety of viewpoints - from Vincent Browne to Kevin Myers - is dying, is it not incumbent on us to intervene? Because market forces may lead to computers deciding what news you get to read......

As an aside - I was happy to pay the IT when it was behind a firewall and I would be happy to pay for a decent (i.e. not Murdoch owned) Newspaper with good journalism. At heart I think good journalists should be paid for their content!

Silentcorner · 01-12-2013 10:34pm

micosoft wrote: »

My point is more around the idea we need to intervene in the Newspaper market in some form.

I agree - journalism is becoming more and more about using stereotypes as it does not involve challenging the reader. Limerick becomes a quick shorthand in many peoples minds. So low standards already. Only decent article I read on the issues in certain areas of Limerick suburbs was by Des O'Malley.

The internet is increasingly dangerous by creating narrow results that simply reinforce a persons viewpoint. Personalisation is potentially one of the greatest threat to a well informed electorate that we face (slight hyperbole, but...)

Have a look at a really interesting but short Ted Talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

It's frightening how "different" online news looks based on some algorithm.

So I come back to my point. If the broad stable newspaper (or source) which displays a variety of viewpoints - from Vincent Browne to Kevin Myers - is dying, is it not incumbent on us to intervene? Because market forces may lead to computers deciding what news you get to read......

As an aside - I was happy to pay the IT when it was behind a firewall and I would be happy to pay for a decent (i.e. not Murdoch owned) Newspaper with good journalism. At heart I think good journalists should be paid for their content!

Interesting link, and let us not lose sight of the fact that Google and Facebook are in their infancy, where will they be in 10/20 years time...

In so far as newspapers are concerned, it is my belief that the current model is dead, several hundred people working with secure contracts producing daily newspapers places enormous stress on the financials of the organisation, it also depends on the willingness of the punter to go out and pay for the newspaper, how much money do newspaper titles make on circulation? Their advertising rates are directly correlated with that circulation. So essentially the punter decides on the future of the title, hence the dumbing down of content (see any particular copy of the Indo)

I am not sure as to the long term viability of placing content on a news website (even at a price) the industry has struggled for over ten years to make sense or revenue from this model.

You are absolutely correct, good journalism should be paid for, websites will never yield the revenue required to pay that money.

We know of two certain crucial factors

1 People need good content / healthy fourth state
2 Newspaper advertising is extremely effective, and in demand

The future may look like this

A weekly/bi free weekly edition, published by an advertising sales company, using content from a variety of sources, who instead of being directly employed are paid for content printed, just like contributors, the owners need to have a captive audience, need to maintain a high standard of journalism to maintain their readers interest. Production needs be outsourced also. Distribution through either direct mail, which is not as off the wall as it may seem, companies pay good money to place flyers in your letterbox, if a newspaper was sent directly it could sell enough inserts to cover the charge, possibly.

Or state intervention, possibly awarding a licence to one/two operators on a paid for newspaper model.

One thing for certain is there will be massive change over the coming years, the current lot are too entrenched in the old way to change.

grainnewhale · 01-12-2013 11:02pm

For starters, this is just a poll and may be representive or not. All journalists have strong opinions, so while presenting the "facts" they can be skewed and manipulated to strengthen your case. My main problem with the Irish times is Fintan the tool. No media should get public funding and that includes RTE.

PRAF · 01-12-2013 11:10pm

Education, education, education. Mass advertising will help but really we need to educate people about politics, government, society, etc. That way, they,ll be more equipped and motivated to properly engage with these issues

micosoft · 02-12-2013 12:15am

grainnewhale wrote: »

For starters, this is just a poll and may be representive or not. All journalists have strong opinions, so while presenting the "facts" they can be skewed and manipulated to strengthen your case. My main problem with the Irish times is Fintan the tool. No media should get public funding and that includes RTE.

No - the problem here is that you don't agree with Fintan O'Toole. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree it is important (and for the record I disagree with most of what Fintan writes) that people read opposing opinions. That's what good journalism is about and why a strong News Media trade is important. This is the fundamental issue I am talking about - we are coming to an era when people like yourself only read commentary that agrees with your worldview and utterly intolerant of opposing views (I'm merely going by your name-calling of Fintan). That is not good for democracy.

micosoft · 02-12-2013 12:31am

Silentcorner wrote: »

Interesting link, and let us not lose sight of the fact that Google and Facebook are in their infancy, where will they be in 10/20 years time...

To be fair I think that's what he was looking at - increasing personalisation that Google, Facebook, Yahoo et al are pushing. The future looks very like the US where people can be shocked when presented with information contrary to their world-view. You live in Republican land or Democratic land and complete polarisation occurs between the two. Imagine every (insert opposition party you don't agree with here) post "disappeared" from your Boards.ie - could make for a boring politics forum.

I don't think either of us will solve the newspaper model conundrum - most newspapers lose money. An awful lot of posters think the state should not get involved but have no qualms with the current alternative - tycoons like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) and Denis O'Brien closer to home who buy for philanthropic/vanity/(insert agenda here) reasons. Now we can go way off topic discussing ownership structure as many smarter minds have been trying and failing to find a model that works.

That said, perhaps I/we are premature....
“Newspapers continue to reign supreme in the delivery of local news. Charlie and I believe that papers delivering comprehensive and reliable information to tightly bound communities and having a sensible Internet strategy will remain viable for a long time.

Berkshire’s cash earnings from its papers will almost certainly trend downward over time. Even a sensible Internet strategy will not be able to prevent modest erosion. At our cost, however, I believe these papers will meet or exceed our economic test for acquisitions. Results to date support that belief.”

- Warren Buffett, 2012 Berkshire Shareholder Letter (May 1, 2013)

He's rarely wrong, especially with industries he understands. More local news supported by syndicated national content.

K-9 · 02-12-2013 1:31am

micosoft wrote: »

No - the problem here is that you don't agree with Fintan O'Toole. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree it is important (and for the record I disagree with most of what Fintan writes) that people read opposing opinions. That's what good journalism is about and why a strong News Media trade is important. This is the fundamental issue I am talking about - we are coming to an era when people like yourself only read commentary that agrees with your worldview and utterly intolerant of opposing views (I'm merely going by your name-calling of Fintan). That is not good for democracy.

The problem isn't opinion writers like O'Toole or even Myers, it's less resources devoted to fact checking Government and other reports released to the media. They all seem to be taken as fact, in attention grabbing headlines, not something you'll find on a site like Boards. You wont be long finding out how a report or statistic is biased on Boards, even if it's a biased poster quoting a website or paper that concurs with their alternative world view!

I can remember John Hume coming under a sustained attacked in the Sindo over 20 years ago over the Hume/Adam talks. It was a despicably one sided analysis with 4 anti talks pages, big hitting opinion writers and one, at most, pro Hume. They were wrong as history shows, but the Sindo still is the best selling Sunday paper, still has an anti SF/Republican agenda, and still a huge following. It sells.

Opinions are opinions, like arseholes, everybody has one, but it would help if journalists could do basic fact checking on news articles that form the basis for our often lazy generalisations.

Black Swan · 02-12-2013 9:35am

Phoebas wrote: »

I like this bubble chart of UK expenditure. It wouldn't take too much effort to produce one with Irish figures.

I love this chart. It exemplifies the problem. It is very complex, as are the issues it illustrates. How can you expect today's voter to understand such complexity, when many have trouble balancing their check books, or understanding the risks involved in personal mortgage debt?

For those that have succeeded in living within their means, and perhaps growing their net worth overtime, understanding a few thousand euros does not conceptually prepare them for understanding the allocation of billions, all within a highly complex national economy and dynamic global marketplace.

Voter apathy is yet another problem. Many of us are so tied-up in our day-to-day problems that we are ill prepared to take on those of the nation. It's just too easy election time to vote for the lad or lass who looks the look, walks the walk, and talks the talk that we find attractive, often for superficial reasons.

Could the voter be better prepared tomorrow than today? I would hope so, but I doubt that simply changing the content of newsprint and other forums of social media will be the silver bullet that overcomes the lack of preparation to intelligibly vote in future elections. It may be part of the solution. Sadly, there's no simple solution to this complex problem. No quick fixes. The whole culture would have to change, perhaps starting with our (re)education, and the education of our children using every medium possible overtime.

micosoft · 02-12-2013 11:47am

K-9 wrote: »

The problem isn't opinion writers like O'Toole or even Myers, it's less resources devoted to fact checking Government and other reports released to the media. They all seem to be taken as fact, in attention grabbing headlines, not something you'll find on a site like Boards. You wont be long finding out how a report or statistic is biased on Boards, even if it's a biased poster quoting a website or paper that concurs with their alternative world view!

I can remember John Hume coming under a sustained attacked in the Sindo over 20 years ago over the Hume/Adam talks. It was a despicably one sided analysis with 4 anti talks pages, big hitting opinion writers and one, at most, pro Hume. They were wrong as history shows, but the Sindo still is the best selling Sunday paper, still has an anti SF/Republican agenda, and still a huge following. It sells.

Opinions are opinions, like arseholes, everybody has one, but it would help if journalists could do basic fact checking on news articles that form the basis for our often lazy generalisations.

I agree with your tenet that fact checking is appalling in Irish Newspapers. That the Irish Times provided a synopsis of a survey without presenting the source is shocking. That's why I think The Guardians guardian.com/data site is an exemplar of what papers of record should be doing.

That said - I don't agree with your example - there were no "facts" around the peace process. Many (including myself) were wrong about John Humes momentous and very brave actions in bring SF into a process. But there were no "facts" or guarantees around the process. It was very much about a number of personalities bringing their communities with them which also leads to personality opinion pieces. The only facts were that the IRA were killing and maiming people at that time. Now talking about unbalanced opinion pieces is different and I agree - the Independent was excessively negative though more a function of the background and history of its opinion writers (Conor Cruise O'Brien springs to mind). That said - some of the commentary was justified as the "fleg" protests show - not all of the community were brought forward.

Balanced commentary is essential to providing people with the insight they need to decide what's best for them. As Black Swan pointed out the vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to fact check or do research - that's the journalists role in our democracy. To distil down the facts to something digestible by the public.

This is from Wiki but it is a useful quote nonetheless:

Lippmann argued that most individuals lacked the capacity, time, and motivation to follow and analyze news of the many complex policy questions that troubled society. Nor did they often directly experience most social problems, or have direct access to expert insights. These limitations were made worse by a news media that tended to over-simplify issues and to reinforce stereotypes, partisan viewpoints, and prejudices. As a consequence, Lippmann believed that the public needed journalists like himself who could serve as expert analysts, guiding “citizens to a deeper understanding of what was really important

Godge · 02-12-2013 1:11pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, similar findings have been made almost everywhere. The public are almost invariably under quite bizarre impressions as to where their tax money goes.

I think that's part of the explanation for the otherwise rather surprisingly vociferous advocates of cutting politicians' salaries as a genuine cost-saving measure when it would make virtually no difference - and the same for foreign aid (tiny), EU payments in the UK (tiny), and so on.

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes. The cost would be non-trivial, but on the other hand hardly unbearable either. I have a feeling it might come to about €20-30k or so, which one might be able to raise through kickstarter...would there be a sufficient number of people who care to drum up that money? €10 a head by 2-3000 people in the country? It should be doable.

Repeat yearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Generally I would agree with this, except for the point about Irish aid.

http://www.dci.gov.ie/what-we-do/how-our-aid-works/where-the-money-goes/

"Ireland’s total aid expenditure in 2011 was €657 million"

$657m is non-trivial expenditure.

Remember the probity on medical cards was expected to save €113m initially, since reduced.

The HSE is supposed to save €150m from HRA efficiencies.

The pay saving from HRA is supposed to be €210m.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-07-17a.291

Not saying we should cut the aid budget significantly buy unlike say, politician's salaries or top-up allowances in the health sector, we could actually make real savings from cutting the aid budget.

As an aside, it was quite ironic when at the height of the crisis as the IMF were being brought in, a number of countries receiving aid from Ireland were able to borrow at lower rates from the market.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-12-2013 1:17pm

Godge wrote: »

Generally I would agree with this, except for the point about Irish aid.

http://www.dci.gov.ie/what-we-do/how-our-aid-works/where-the-money-goes/

"Ireland’s total aid expenditure in 2011 was €657 million"

$657m is non-trivial expenditure.<..>

I'd agree, and I'd add that our aid spending used to be nearly a billion. It was (and still is) quite a substantial budget.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-seeking-to-stabilise-overseas-aid-budget-1.1525863

Scofflaw · 02-12-2013 6:06pm

I knew it to be "about €600m", but I agree it's fair to say that 1.2% of government spending is non-trivial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 02-12-2013 8:13pm

Couldn't it be said voters aren't ill-informed as such, they are simply properly prioritising their research into politics based on the relevance it has to the decisions they have to make? Voters do not directly get a vote in the budget process, and the party whip system ensure they lack even indirect influence as their TD is forced to vote with the party regardless of voter instructions. So why would a voter waste their time learning off the national spending % breakdown when they will almost never have use for it?

micosoft · 03-12-2013 12:12am

Sand wrote: »

Couldn't it be said voters aren't ill-informed as such, they are simply properly prioritising their research into politics based on the relevance it has to the decisions they have to make? Voters do not directly get a vote in the budget process, and the party whip system ensure they lack even indirect influence as their TD is forced to vote with the party regardless of voter instructions. So why would a voter waste their time learning off the national spending % breakdown when they will almost never have use for it?

So why bother with anything? You clearly don't believe we live in a democracy with your take on the whip system. To think this man has such incredible power!

b3ppkxpmijdrb97o84nlwifmumyjf0u

Sand · 03-12-2013 1:36am

So why bother with anything? You clearly don't believe we live in a democracy with your take on the whip system. To think this man has such incredible power!

I believe we live in a very weak democracy. Though at least broadly liberal one.

That said the point stands - given the system is designed to ensure TDs prioritise allegiance to the party whip over directions from their electorate, why exactly should the voters bother researching budgetary spending stats? When will they ever be asked to make a decision or even influence a decision where its important to know if 27% of social welfare spending goes to pensioners or to the unemployed?

People and voters are clearly prioritising what's more relevant given their lack of influence over national policy: who fixed the potholes in the road, who helps them fill in their forms, who got the spending grant for their local sports club etc. All perfectly rational under the conditions of our political system.

micosoft · 03-12-2013 1:56am

They won't ever be asked 27% of social welfare spending goes to pensioners or to the unemployed and I can't think of a single modern democracy that would suggest such a state of affairs. We live in a party based parliamentary democracy where people vote for candidates who represent parties that have clearly defined manifesto's and policies. I suggest the voter informs themselves and vote for candidates who represent the party whose manifesto most meets the voters informed preferences.

It's a totally different topic/discussion but given only 14 out of 166 TD's were voted in as "Whipless" independents it's safe to say most people would disagree with your preferred political system.

Chips Lovell · 03-12-2013 10:55am

Nobody is obliging you to vote for someone under a party whip. You can always vote for an Independent.

Sand · 03-12-2013 7:30pm

micosoft wrote: »

They won't ever be asked 27% of social welfare spending goes to pensioners or to the unemployed and I can't think of a single modern democracy that would suggest such a state of affairs.

Exactly, they wont - they're much more likely to prioritise investigating and learning about subjects where they will be asked to make decisions. So why the concern that people clearly haven't been studying up on budgetary spending? Its a perfectly understandable by-product of a system built on the belief that the people are ignorant, red necked, knuckle dragging thieves who would ruin the wondrous system of government we have if they were allowed a significant if indirect say in it.

We live in a party based parliamentary democracy where people vote for candidates who represent parties that have clearly defined manifesto's and policies. I suggest the voter informs themselves and vote for candidates who represent the party whose manifesto most meets the voters informed preferences.

Manifestos are almost entirely works of fiction. All mature Irish voters know that politicians are instinctively honest but to get elected they are forced (forced I tell you)to lie to the feckless, ignorant, stupid, blank faced cattle...uh I mean Irish citizens who are valued participants in our democratic state. The only use an Irish voter gets out of a party's manifesto is dependant on the papers texture and how well bound it is.

The wise, mature, experienced Irish voter knows you don't vote on national issues which you have no influence over, and which your TD is very unlikely to have any influence over, and over whom you will have no influence in any case. Instead they rationally elect whoever did good local work or has a proven track record in delivering government spending in the local areas.

It's a totally different topic/discussion but given only 14 out of 166 TD's were voted in as "Whipless" independents it's safe to say most people would disagree with your preferred political system.

Most people are fairly rational - "Whipless" independants dont yet have a good track record in delivering government spending in their area.

That said, the support for independants is on the rise, and the support for "whipped" parties is as weak as it has ever been with a greater share of voters prefering "none of the above", which is the biggest factor in Fianna Fails supposed resurgence.

@Vladimir Kurtains

Nobody is obliging you to vote for someone under a party whip. You can always vote for an Independent.

Yes, I can.

micosoft · 04-12-2013 1:55am

Finally the actual survey.

Sheldons Brain · 04-12-2013 2:13am

It is notable how the present government has entirely avoided any improvement in the presentation or delivery of information, but have embraced obfuscation and spin in a way the Bertie would be proud of. They could have said that the country was in a mess and that they were going to improve information delivery so that people had a better chance of seeing it coming next time, but they have chosen not to do this.

dlouth15 · 04-12-2013 11:50am

Which of the following groups receive the most from the public purse in terms of direct payments to them?
Answers given
Welfare recipients: 25%
Public servants: 26%
Politicians: 48%
Don’t know: 2%

Poorly phrased question.

dlouth15 · 04-12-2013 12:00pm

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is notable how the present government has entirely avoided any improvement in the presentation or delivery of information, but have embraced obfuscation and spin in a way the Bertie would be proud of. They could have said that the country was in a mess and that they were going to improve information delivery so that people had a better chance of seeing it coming next time, but they have chosen not to do this.

I don't think it was lack of information that led to the current mess. More like it was interpretation of that information. For example if you go back to to the housing bubble, rapidly rising prices were very widely reported but this was interpreted as a positive thing for the most part and proof that the doom-mongers were wrong. The Irish Times, publisher of this survey, was one of the cheerleaders of the bubble.

Similarly, banks were happy to report that their rate of lending was increasing by 25% a year as likewise they interpreted this as a positive thing. The banks had no lack of information but failed to grasp the big picture.

Grudaire · 04-12-2013 12:45pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Poorly phrased question.

I'd agree - that question completely threw me. I (wrongly) assumed that it was a per-person question..

The % questions are a bit meaningless. Some people would know the general direction of a trend, but actually guessing exact percentages is quite difficult.

Also by comparing the actual answer to the average it's wide open to being thrown off by outrageous guesses (100% or 0%)

Another similar quiz is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24836917

Scofflaw · 04-12-2013 1:11pm

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is notable how the present government has entirely avoided any improvement in the presentation or delivery of information, but have embraced obfuscation and spin in a way the Bertie would be proud of. They could have said that the country was in a mess and that they were going to improve information delivery so that people had a better chance of seeing it coming next time, but they have chosen not to do this.

I frequently wonder how much of bad government communication is actually deliberate. My experience of communication by large organisations is that the initial intent is transparency, but that final result is opacity. Watching the communication of something going from initial intent to final outcome is quite similar to watching pinball.

In this case, say Noonan decides that the financial position of the country needs to be communicated clearly to the public. What that means, practically speaking, is that Noonan tells the DoF and agrees with the CBI, that this needs to happen. Various civil servants get together and look at what can be communicated - which will result in awkward discoveries where they find they don't have some sets of information, that they do have others but they would need work to be publication-ready, that some information is potentially commercially sensitive, while other information makes particular people, organisations, or units, look bad. Various interests will drag their feet because they don't want the information public, or because they don't want to commit to providing it regularly, and so on. Some of what is provided will be incomprehensible without specialist knowledge, different parts will have been assembled by different people at different times using different criteria and reference points, and so on. At the final stage it will be discovered that there isn't anybody with the necessary breadth of knowledge and the time to regularly out all of what is finally available into a comprehensive context which makes any sense to the general public, or even the media. Some while after that it will be discovered that the data is being criticised by external users, none of whom were consulted during the process, although that's because there were no external users until the data was actually released.

And finally, nobody will read the information except for a few journalists, who will mine it for sensational nuggets with not much relevance to the whole, and sometimes without any real understanding of what's being said in any case. And that, because it will be put in front of people without any effort on their part bar moving their eyeballs, and will have been tarted up to look interesting, will be what the public actually gets. The end result is not very different from the current situation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

micosoft · 04-12-2013 4:02pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Poorly phrased question.

Actually I think quite a few of the questions were poorly phrased or did not make a lot of sense. Question 6 for example.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-12-2013 11:39pm

micosoft wrote: »

Actually I think quite a few of the questions were poorly phrased or did not make a lot of sense. Question 6 for example.

I'd agree that I'd expect a professionally designed survey to be more robust. And Q 3 in particular is ambiguous.

But most of the questions are actually pretty clear. For instance, there's not much room for mistaking Q 2.

Dannyboy83 · 05-12-2013 4:57pm

micosoft wrote: »

My own view is that the forth estate have significant blame here .

I suppose this is related

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

One of Ireland's leading investigative journalists has been fired after being called "a rogue reporter". The departure from the Irish Independent of Gemma O'Doherty, a multi award-winning senior features writer, has received almost no coverage in the rest of the media.

...

In April this year, she doorstepped Ireland's police chief, Garda commissioner Martin Callinan, and questioned his wife while seeking to confirm a story that penalty points had been wiped from Callinan's driving record.

The article states that two executives at O'Doherty's paper were "appalled" at her making the approach without previously informing her bosses.

Public opinion is one thing, facts are another

Comments